Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Glostik91 wrote: The idea that things cause each other is ultimately ironic.
Yes, it
is the ironic quality of all things. Causality can be said to exist, like change can be said to happen. By definition really. But any specific effect or "thing" remains fundamentally ambiguous and therefore ultimately ironic when rendered. Baudrillard already remarked in his hyper-ironic language (which tends to happen when when philosophizing about objects): "
From the moment they pass through medium or image ... objects exert an artificial and ironic function by their very existence". Or even bolder: "
It is not desire that we cannot escape, but the ironic presence of the object, its indifference, and its indifferent interconnections, its challenge, its seduction, its violation of the symbolic order".
After a little study of Baudrillard, I have to critique what he said. Did he think that we can escape desire but not the irony in logic?
What's the difference between feeling this odd sense of irony, and desiring to rectify it? It seems like he is suggesting we should just let a small rock stay in our shoe and irritate our feet. We can choose to not desire to take the rock out, but we can't escape its sting. If this metaphor is accurate then there is definitely an irony in it as well. It reminds me of 'The Secret.' haha Just imagine it, and desire it, and its yours! Or in other words just imagine it, and desire it, and it'll be gone!
Or is it more like this?
We put on a stoic face, shove the self disgrace and shame in our pocket, put our heads down and except the raw deal fate handed us.
My point was more that the leper will usually, by regular body checks, deduce such a hammering did occur at some point and make sure it's taken care of. The event lies in his past but it seems hard to contest that reality. One could see this as no different than any signal of pain, just slower and involving more (complex) deliberation. It's the same with our whole construction of reality: many signals, deductions, filtering going on and they all together create some more or less coherent image: our organic world view. One strong signal really cannot be "real" just by itself, like one rusty nail does not present "table".
If we're talking about a leper making after the fact deductions, I don't think deductions need to take place. If a leper looks at his toe, and it's smashed, its obvious that the toe is smashed, but what's not obvious is the implement used. The reasoning that it was a blunt object is inductive. Getting it taken care of would fall into inductive reasoning as well. For example I know this doctor is good based on such and such criteria.
An interesting question is, does reasoning have the ability to be deductive without inductive? And vice-versa? I'm not trying to lead you on here. This is a genuinely spontaneous question.
A good question and goes to the heart of philosophizing. But if you mean "knowledge", it's called epistemology. Truth appears to work inside a context, like something being "in accordance with reality", meaning that we have now defined something called reality as background "truth maker". If the context of the absolute (of constance, unmoving), absolute truths are nothing but truths in accordance with that "constant" nature.
Its interesting we have to have some sort of 'given.' Whether its 'reality' or 'absolute truth' or whatever. If I ask you, 'What is absolute truth?' Can I respond in saying I reject your notion of 'absolute truth?'
You mean which other self-consciousness can I introduce to own it? How could that ever answer the deeper question here? This is not an attempt to avoid the answer though but it needs probably another context to make more sense.
Its interesting you assume I think that some other consciousness needs to be introduced in order to have possession of a consciousness. Can things besides consciousness obtain some sort of ownership?
My basic idea is to point out the oddity that we all feel fine saying, I have a body, I have a mind, I have a soul, etc, but what is it that has these things? And why does thinking about who owns these things feel odd?
I've been thinking about what happens after death, and I have a hypothesis. Could it be that death results in a new randomizing of everything possible? If anything is possible given enough time, and seeing as the passage of time won't be of any significance to me, it would seem as if anything is possible after death. What happens to me is that I will be thrown into a new randomization in the truest sense of the word. Sort of like shuffling a deck of cards after a hand of solitaire or something.
